About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
MSNBCW 16
CNNW 13
CSPAN 6
KNTV (NBC) 2
KTVU (FOX) 2
CNBC 1
CSPAN2 1
LANGUAGE
English 57
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 57 (some duplicates have been removed)
it as enemy combatant, military court. i know john mccain, lindsey graham, couple of others are pushing for that. you need a little more evidence to know whether you can do that. you really have to know, did he become part of the terrorist war against the united states? these e-mails and texts that they're discovering kind of make a pretty good case that he was part of a group that's at war against the united states. if you can make that case, then you could try him in a military court. you could try him in guantanamo bay and not have the spectacle of this trial having to take place in boston or some other place where they would change venue. >> are you sure about military court? as i understand, it was for noncitizens and for foreign nationals. >> if a citizen becomes part of the war effort against the united states -- let's take an example like this. let's take the second world war. let's say an american citizen went to germany and joined the nazi army and invaded the united states, we could try that person in a military court. now, the nature of this war is so ambiguous, you're going
're hearing, it was that lowest threshold. >> now, senator lindsey graham is saying there was misspelled paperwork in the form of misspelled names. which resulted in a failure to follow up these individuals. is it really possible that a simple spelling error may have caused a breakdown in the communication here? >> i -- short answer, i don't know in this case. however, i will tell you that transliteration, in particular from arabic, for example, translated to english, vice versa, at times can cause con nu confusion to the system but not a breakdown. >> the relationship between intelligence agencies here and russia and perhaps a lack of cooperation between the two. >> well, at least through my time in government, with most allied countries and even nominal allies, at the law enforcement level and intel, usually quite good. it's kind of a comrade in arms type approach. there is, however, though, martin, sometimes there are political considerations. we don't know if we have that here. but in this case, if there was something really compelling on the russian side, it brings up the question,
heard in that report from mike emanuel, lindsey graham, republican from south carolina said let's go quickly. essentially we have terrorists in our midst. we might. let's find out who all of these 11 million people who have come here illegally are but does anyone think that terrorists will step to the front of the line to register? >> you know, look. this is the broader question of will, will this immigration reform bill make us safer? i think gram gram overstated the argument, you're right. -- lindsey graham. you're a terrorist attempting to be member of a sleeper cell it is unclear you will necessarily surface as this proposed new law requires you to do and make yourself known to authorities. on the other hand here is the ironic thing. in a way the bill could make us safer from this perspective. the two brothers came here when their family came here. their family came here look like they had other families already here. the parents of two the brothers had a brother, their uncle already here in the united states and they therefore appear like they might have come here, they got extr
cain, lindsey graham, they are suggesting. >> that could take him out of the american criminal justice system and put him into some other kind of system. it's not quite clear. a military tribunal, perhaps being sent to guantanamo. in any case the obama administration has shown absolutely no interest in that idea and every indication is that he will be tried as a criminal defendant in an american criminal courtroom. >> lindsey graham who himself is a military attorney, has spent 30 years in the u.s. air force, he insists he wants tsarnaev to be tried in american civilian court, but that didn't preclude at least for now naming him an enemy combatant to try to question him to see if there are other bombs out there, other individuals who may be involved. sort of this imminent threat notion. is he on sound legal ground, lindsey graham, when he says, yes, he'll go before a civil trial, but at least for now name him an enemy combatant so he can be questioned? >> well, the obama administration has established a policy of a so-called public safety exception to the miranda rule where for some period of
by using the normal criminal procedures. >> because lindsey graham and others say, yes, he should be tried as a u.s. citizen, should be tried in a u.s. civilian court, but that can await this process of doing some serious interrogation of him and designating him as an enemy combatant in the meantime. all of this is moot right now, because as you know, yesterday, he was formally given his miranda rights and a judge magistrate at his bed side with a court-appointed attorney, a public defender. this is moot as the obama administration has made its decision. is lindsey graham on sound legal ground, saying he should be tried in a civilian court, but held and questioned as an enemy combatant? >> i think the only fair answer to that question is we don't know. because it's never been done before in american history to have some sort of hybrid combatant and criminal proceeding. we do know from jake tapper's reporting, there was an interrogation of tsavraev. and he did disclose his position that there was no broader conspiracy here. just him and his pressure. it seems like the justice department and
are following today along with our top story out of boston. just yesterday senator lindsey graham warned islam is extremists are still a serious threat to our nation. >> our nation is at war, the enemy is radical islam, defined as the taliban, al-qaida, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston. jenna: we now know according to the white house that is not going to happen. senator lindsey graham republican of south carolina is a member of the judiciary committee and stepped out of a hearing to join us. nice to have you back on the program. >> thank you very much. jenna: let's talk a little bit about what you had to say about radical islam. you say yo we need to up our game. what specifically do you mean by upping our game against radical islam. >> the first thing we need to do is reject the narrative of this administration that osama bin laden is dead, the wars are receding and we are all safe. they've been trying to s
and lindsey graham are next. aaah! aaaaah! theres a guy on the window! do something, dad! aaaah! aaaah! what is happening? they're rate suckers. their bad driving makes car insurance more expensive for the rest of us. good thing there's snapshot from progressive. snap it in and get a discount based on your good driving. stop paying for rate suckers. try snapshot free at progressive.com. i'm just red carpets and big spectacles. but that's only the beginning. i have more than one red carpet. i like all sorts of spectacles. from the grandiose to the impromptu... to the completely unexpected. and the most epic thrill ride this city has ever faced. transformers the ride 3d. los angeles. endlessly entertaining. start exploring at discoverlosangeles.com >>> i am joined by senator chuck schumer, democrat from new york. and south carolina republican senator lindsey graham with whom we just mentioned cooperated and came up recently with a bipartisan immigration bill. i want to get to that as well the effect of boston on that discussion. let me first ask you, you heard congressman mccaul written a lett
terrorist organizations that he has knowledge of. >> reporter: lindsey graham says the enemy combatant designation would allow them to question dzhokhar tsarnaev without a lawyer saying none of that information could be used against him. dianne feinstein argues question can happen for a limited amount of time without calling him an enemy combatant. it let's investigators question a suspect about any imminent threat. >> i am not worried about whether they can convicted. the question is, what else would they have been up to? who are their associates? how did he become radicalized? is there a chechynian connection. that's what has to be discovered. >> reporter: there is also debate about tamerlan tsarnaev shot dead during the manhunt. they interviewed him at the request of russia and dropped the matter after asking for more specific information from russia the fbi never received. >> why is this fbi interview important? because if he was on the radar and they let him go, he was on the russian's radar, why wasn't a flag put on him. >> reporter: michael mccall says he and fellow republican,
/11. well, senator lindsey graham has been outspoken on how the younger suspect ought to be handled by authorities. here's senator graham. >> two things should happen. when the public safety exception expires, and it will here soon, this man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant, and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence-gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist. >> mike: there's a part of me that really wants to agree with the senator. he's my friend, and i like him a lot, but if he's asking us to ar understanding of the due process of law that has established us as a unique light among the darkness in this world, then i have to think through that very carefully. yes, i want to be able to question these guys. no, i don't want them to get all lawyered-up. but at the same time we're a country of laws. i do want our country to acknowledge terrorism when it's obvious terrorism. for example, i want us to say, fort hood, that was terrorism. little rock, the shooting of the soldier outside the
in military commissions. >> michael: even after that announcement, republican senator, lindsey graham just wouldn't let it go and held a press conference to criticize the decision. >> the ability to talk to individuals who may know about terrorist organizations plotting our future demise is a long-held concept under the law of war. i'm asking this administration to leave on the table the option if the evidence warrants to designate this individual as an enemy combatant. >> michael: despite his protestations, tsarnaev will be tried as a civilian. the charges against him are very serious. the u.s. attorney charged him with, quote . . . the complaint cites video evidence showing, dzhokhar tsarnaev placing a backpack at the scene and then crossing the street with a cell phone in his left hand. he surveyed the crowd including the 8-year-old boy who died. he takes a picture of the scene holds the phone to his ear, and 18 seconds later the bomb went off. joining us now president and founder of the group terror free tomorrow and the author of the book "terrorists in love." th
debate, he fled with his tail between his legs. senator lindsey graham and senator talked about obama not try him as an enemy combatants. it was said to see him go, he was a fine figure and a state senator, isn't it? >> al a high state legislature is much more sophisticated than we saw here today. >> let's talk about lindsey graham. sang the government should have left dzhokhar tsarnaev as an enemy combat and, at least on the table as a possibility. >> it is not permissible under the law. you cannot treat an american citizen who is accused of committing an american crime against mostly american citizens in boston as an enemy combatants. it would turn our country -- >> it has never happened before. >> into martial law. the supreme court struck that down and american citizens were charged with crimes and this fellow is being charged with an ordinary crime that anybody could be charged with the team made a bomb to kill his mother-in-law. it does not require any allegation of terrorism. the idea we can deny and trial by jury, speedy trial, all of the things in the constitution and the bil
a top republican like lindsey graham. >> the only thing you need to know about lindsey gram right now is that he's running for re-election. even though he knows better, even though he knows that dzhokhar, for example, is not going to be tried as an enemy combatant, even though he knows his allegations against the president are ridiculous, it's a way of him scoring political points. i'll say, you know, i don't think there's anything wrong as you were pointing out asking questions about, okay, did the fbi follow the right course here? >> the investigation. >> absolutely. but when you go for this nakedly political point instead, you actually undermine those sorts of honest investigations. because it turns it into political football rather than a real inquiry into what happened and if there was anything we could do or anything we could learn. >> i think, joan, there is a legitimate questions one could raise, whether i agree with them or you agree with them or not. >> right. >> but to rev up benghazi, too? it is clear they're trying to get all kind of old political points, mixing in with n
court. i know john mccain, lindsey graham, couple of others are pushing for that. you need a little more evidence to know whether you can do that. you really have to know, did he become part of the terrorist war against the united states? these e-mails and texts that they're discovering kind of make a pretty good case that he was part of a group that's at war against the united states. if you can make that case, then you could try him in a military court. you could try him in guantanamo bay and not have the spectacle of this trial having to take place in boston or some other place where they would change venue. >> are you sure about military court? as i understand, it was for noncitizens and for foreign nationals. >> if a citizen becomes part of the war effort against the united states -- let's take an example like this. let's take the second world war. let's say an american citizen went to germany and joined the nazi army and invaded the united states, we could try that person in a military court. now, the nature of this war is so ambiguous, you're going to get a lot of arguments as to
of that immigration bill, chuck schumer and lindsey graham are next. a simple question: how old is the oldest person you've known? we gave people a sticker and had them show us. we learned a lot of us have known someone who's lived well into their 90s. and that's a great thing. but even though we're living longer, one thing that hasn't changed: the official retirement age. ♪ the question is how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of these years. ♪ to enjoy all of these years. at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in. with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises. ♪ there is no mass-produced there is no mass-produced human. every signature is unique and every fingerprint unrepeatable. and there is one store that recognizes it: the sleep number store. the only place in the world you'll find the extraordinarily comfortable sleep number bed: the only bed with dual-air technology that allows you to adjust to the su
's what's interesting -- both lindsey graham and senator schumer who were on the show are members of that gang of eight that came up with this bipartisan reform for the immigration system. we've now heard opponents of the immigration system saying this is another reason why we need to take a look at what's going on here. you get the feel the slow walk is beginning. boert senator graham and senator schumer make the case this is the time for emigration reform. 40% i believe is the figure of the folks who are in the united states without documentation have overstayed their visas and they say that within their legislation is a mechanism and a system through which that will no longer be the case, that when people are in this country, you will know who they are. now let's remember that one of these young men -- the yucker brother was a u.s. citizen, the other was a permanent resident. i don't know how far that kind of system would reach out. but nonetheless, they think that now is the precise time to have immigration reform, not a time to slow it down. >> candy crowley, thanks so much,
to change. >> lindsey graham is doing a whole bunch of talk radio this morning. it's clear to me, we know why they probably booked all these interviews. because they're worried that this is where the immigration issue could percolate where all of the sudden the connection to boston happens. >> i think it also shows that compared to the last time around in '06 and '07 the republicans who were for this type of legislation are a lot more active in trying to engage with the conservative critics. >> dan, that does seem to be a huge difference before, they would lament maybe to you in interviews. but they wouldn't actively try to fix this. >> yeah. you know, they're pushing forward in a way they weren't before. they're much more confident about the reasons why they're doing this. and they're -- they feel much less defensive about it when they're being criticized by their own people. >> at the press conference amongst the most eloquent were marco rubio. the marco rubio. >> you were there. richard. this was the most fascinating -- >> it's a definition of kumbaya. >> it got those many votes. stick
bell lindsey graham, why isn't he being treated as an enemy combatant? that one to me -- >> what about benghazi? >> shut up. >> stephanie: i'll always have benghazi. it is my terror. no. >> i would never go thirsty again. i'll have another mint julep thank you. >> stephanie: the legal expert i heard this weekend said this is a nonstarter to treat him as enemy combatants. did he a crime on u.s. soil. >> peter king said this. >> i believe -- should be portrayed as enemy combatants. senator mccain, senator graham, senator ayotte, there are so many questions unanswered so many potential links to terrorism here. the battlefield is now in the united states. i believe he is an enemy combatant. ultimately, he will be tried in a civilian court and the statements taken from him cannot be used against him in that trial. right now, the only links we have as much as chechnyan involvement in the islamic movement. are there other conspirators out there? where do they get the radicalization? >> he sounds like pam gellar. might as well grow some gigantic boobs. >> stephanie: run-on sentence please, for
on watching that first-hand. lindsey graham says we need to up our game. we're still at war. now there's the big debate on spending right now. is this the time that to cut homeland security spending or to go after that budget or what is your view on that? because you know for two years now you've been talking about debt and deficit spending. and in this sense it all ties back together. >> well, what's driving our spending and driving our debt is the fact that there are 10,000 baby boomers like me retiring every day. 70,000 this week. 3.5 million this year. social security, medicare, there is no money there in those fund. it has all been spent. people are living longer, accessing medicaid. so the real drivers of the debt primarily are our big entitlement programs that won't survive in their current form unless we make some changes. so it has got, it really has nothing to do with what we call the discretionary spending pot. bill: understood. homeland security spending is not touched? >> we have the sequester because the president won't get serious about solving our big spending problem.
on and is he prosecuted as an enemy combatant as senator mccain and lindsey graham and others -- >> martha: do you expect this administration to do that? >> no, because they've stated they will not hold american citizens indefinitely, even though -- >> martha: that's established under the supreme court -- >> the defense authorization act of 2012, they can. there have been statements by the president that they wouldn't enforce it. but if they wanted to enforce it, they could at this point. this will become a subject of debate. what's best for america? hold them forever or try them? let's see what happens. >> martha: as always, great to have you. >> good to see you. >> martha: bill? >> bill: martha, there is still -- they're still collecting evidence on boylston street. we saw the haz-mat suits on a short time ago. that process still continues. boston shows its resilience. the residence come out cheering the efforts of police and the investigation. as that continues, too, the applause from last night will be memorable in this city's long and historic tradition. [ cheers and applause ] >> usa! us
senators includes lindsey graham called for. senator graham challenged them saying the decision they made premature. let's listen. >> here's my concern. as a lawyer for over 30 years, civilian and military, i strongly support the concept that no criminal defendant should ever be required to incriminate themselves while they're in custody of the government. every nation at war should have the ability to defend themselves by gathering intelligence. these are not mutually exclusive concepts. i believe our nation is at war. the enemy is radical islam defined as the taliban, al qaeda, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named, to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston? >> let's drill down on the legal status of the boston bombing suspect. kendall coffey. the great jonathan turley, here in washington. thank you for this. can they decide later if a piece of evidence shows up a week from now, that shows a connection, e-mail, whatever, connection with al qaeda,
. again, on this sunday. mike, thanks. >>> south carolina senator lindsey graham is leading the charge to label the boston marathon suspect an enemy combatant. he explained why on cnn this morning. take a listen. >> when the public safety exception expires and it will soon this man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that he has knowledge of and that evidence cannot be used against him in trial. >> the american civil liberties union, aclu, opposes this, "we must not waiver from our tried and true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. denial of rights is un-american and will only make it harder to obtain a fair conviction." how will this play out politically? with me, stephen smith of "the boston globe," dave weigel and lynn sweet of the chicago sun-times. good to see you all on this sunday. lynn, let me start with you here at least. four our republican senators joined in lindsey graham's call
that's the wrong legal path. senator lindsey graham of south carolina has said tsarnaev should be questioned by u.s. intelligence agencies. and then put on trial before a military commission, perhaps even at guantanamo bay in cuba. the obama administration has insisted that criminal trials can be just as effective, and tsarnaev is an american citizen, which could complicate putting him in a military court. the actual filing of criminal charges. that could come quite quickly. even within the next day or so. and the -- he would then appear before a federal magistrate. if he is not well enough to leave the hospital, that hearing could actually be done in his hospital room. alex? >> okay, pete, so what point does he get an attorney? >> well, he gets a lawyer during this questioning process for the next 48 hours. under this rule. he has no right to the miranda right. once he exercises his miranda warning, though -- once he exercises his miranda rights he has the choice to stop answering questions. but what the justice department says is, most people in these cases, surprisingly enou
advocates, republicans, are saying such as lindsey graham are -- we understand, they say, we understand he's going to be tried in civilian court but start the questioning -- treat him as an enemy combatant under the law of war. question him by intelligence people. get all the intel you can. then turn him over to the civ civilian authorities. that's what they advocate. that's not going to happen, the administration has decided. he'll be questioned first by this special group set up in the last couple of years in terror cases called the high value detainee interrogation group, fbi cia, dod. they don't have a long time to do that, probably no more than a day or so. then he'll be begin his miranda warning and we'll see if he continues to talk. in other terrorism cases, surprisingly, these people do keep talking. >> mike rogers, chairman, do you have a view how he should be treated in the criminal justice system? >> he's a citizen of the united states. i think that brings all of those protections of the u.s. constitution under the public safety exception, however, i do believe that the fbi has
their fingerprints? voters? records? >> let me give a shout-out to marco rubio and john mccain and lindsey graham who aren't backing down. some free advice to the republican party. republican party lost the hispanic vote. if there isn't some effort to reach out for a lot of the people who live in this country you can kiss off any chance, bill, for any foreseeable future -- >> chris: yeah, bill. [ laughter ] let me say on bill's defense he is pro-immigration reform. >> i'm more skeptical of it now than i was six or seven months ago for this reason, with all due respect. let's have serious public policy arguments about this and begin asking how this man who has been reported to the f.b.i. in 2011, went abroad six or seven months came back and had russian passport. and no problem at all. maybe someone should look at that and look at the border security before we move ahead with 880-page immigration bill. >> the bill is based on border security. >> would it help -- >> we should ask these questions and we should maybe have more detailed questions asked for people who come from certain countries, yes. >> w
an extended trip to russia last year. today on cnn's "state of the union" senator lindsey graham said there were plenty of clues that tsarnaev had been radicalized. >> the ball was dropped in one of two ways. the fbi missed a lot of things, is one potential answer. or our laws do not allow the fbi to follow-up in a sound, solid way. there was a lot to be learned from this guy. he was on websites talking about killing americans. he went overseas, as chuck indicated. he was clearly talking about radical ideas. he was visiting radical areas. it's people like this that you don't want to let out of your sight. and this was a mistake. i don't know if our laws are insufficient or the fbi failed, but we're at war with radical islamists and we need to up our game. >> the chairman of the house homeland security committee is also weighing in on this topic. he told our candy crowley that tamerlan tsarnaev received what he called training while in russia and he thinks tsarnaev made more than one trip to the region. we are learning more about the suspects from the russian republic of dagestan where
out to marco rubio and john mccain and lindsey graham, who aren't backing down, and free advice to the republican party. the republican party lost the hispanic vote huge time, and if there isn't some effort to reach out for a lot of the people who live in this country, you can kiss off any chance, bill, for any foreseeable future. >> yeah, bill. let me just say, on bill's defense, he's actually pro immigration reform. >> i'm more skeptical of it now than i was six or seven months ago, and again for this reason, with all due respect. let's have serious public policy arguments about this. let's talk about how this man, reported by the fbi in 2011, went to russia for six months, came back in the country with a russian or kyrgyz passport. let's have border security first. >> the bill is based on border security. >> and would it help with this problem? >> we should ask these questions. we should maybe have more detailed questions asked for people who come from certain countries, yes. >> we agree on that. >> thank you, panel. see you next week. make sure to follow us on twitter @foxne
countries -- cases in this country. today senator lindsey graham urged the white house to reconsider its decision. >> i'm asking this administration to leave on the table the option if the effort warrants to designate this individual as an enemy combatant. the ability to have access to this suspect without a lawyer present together intelligence about a future attack is absolutely essential to our national security. >> democratic congressman adam shift, a member of the house intelligence committee is "outfront" and he is also a former federal prosecutor. we now that dzhokhar, suspect number two, has been read his miranda rights. sow won't be designated as an enemy combatant. but if he was labelled an enemy combatant, he wouldn't have been entitled to a lawyer and a jury trial. they could have asked him a lot of other questions without a lawyer present that may or may not be relevant to national security. now why did they make this decision not to go for enemy combatant status? do they think they have so much evidence in this case that they can go ahead with the civilian jury trial and the
understand senator lindsey graham correctly, is what he was proposing is by making him an enemy combatant, that he would be turned over to the military to be questioned for a period, 30 days, and whatever he said during that 30 days could not be used against him when he gets turned back over for a federal trial. i think that's what he said. you know, which is different than what i think some people thought he meant originally. but anyway, i also thought it was interesting that the defendant is, according to the magistrate, and we have a copy of the transcript from the court hearing today, is that he is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. they did talk to him a little bit. i guess they might have got some information out of him the last day or so, would you expect? >> you know, i think what we have to do here, greta, as you are pointing out, is to separate the whole notion of what would be admissible in a criminal trial. i think there's very little doubt that he will be found guilty in a criminal trial; that he very likely will receive the death penalty. there's a lot of evidence out the
is one way to achieve something but, what we're trying to achieve, what lindsey graham, and kelly ayotte are trying to achieve, that is the most important thing. our priority here should be, i think, not to punish these perpetrators. not to prosecute them. not to rehabilitate them. our main purpose right now should be, we have somebody in custody who may know of other terrorist plots of other terrorist cells, who has information that may save lives and prevent future bombings. the question is, can we get that information from him, or are we going to do i think what now has been done, tell him he has the right to remain silent and we're going to remain ignorant of the information he has even if that means other people will be killed in terrorist attacks in the future. this is a decision we've made. i think it is a mistaken decision to say we're going to remain ignorant and we're not going, we're going to let him have the right to remain silent, aside from all the prosecution, aside from all other issues. we're remaining ignorant by choice. >> host: here are headlines. "washington post" sa
like rubio, on somebody like lindsey graham up for re-election. on somebody even like john mccain and jeff blake. so it's not impossible for this to occur, but it got a whole lot more difficult. >> joy, here's how the "national review" captured rubio's visit there. "it was striking to see how much he is personally admired by the colorful conservative pundits who broadcast on local a.m. stations, and by the biggest syndicated names like limbaugh. they still believe, without a doubt, that he's a top contender for the republican presidential nomination in 2016 and they love that he's already a national force. but when it comes to immigration, they're not buying it." >> yeah. >> why? >> well, because, you know, at the end of the day the o's at the end of rubio's first and last names are quite valuable to the republican party as an avatar for bringing in more hispanic voters. the ideas he's saying are not useful. it's been kind of pathetic to see marco rubio, supposedly this towering figure, latino ronald reagan of the republican party going hat in hand to radio hosts, begging them
an enemy combatant are those republicans, among them john mccain and lindsey graham. but there's others, they say basically he should be treated as an enemy combatant for now and then handed over to civilian authorities. the information we're learning about his inability to communicate right now throws a wrench into a lot of that. but on the other side, we heard today from the chairman of the intelligence committee of the house, mike rogers, and here is his perspective on why he should not be treated like an enemy combatant. >> he's a citizen of the united states. i think that brings all of the protections of the u.s. constitution. under the public safety exception, however, i do believe that the fbi has a period of time to try to determine what threats are there today. we don't know if there's other devices. we don't know if there's other people. i think mirandizing him up front would be a horrible idea. >> so there are really a series of questions there. first, should he be treated as a criminal -- excuse me, as a -- i want to make sure i get it right, as an enemy combatant. that ques
: the gang of eight spoke yesterday on capitol hill. four republicans and four democrats. lindsey graham of south carolina addressed concerns that he has heard from his peers about the pathway to citizenship. [video clip] >> learn the language, as a civics exams, pay a fine, work, pass a criminal background check, half of my family would be excluded. this is no easy task. [laughter] i'm glad we are not applying it to ourselves. i knowe is that america is ready for immigration reform. you look at all the polls. if the congress ready to do something that we should have done a long time ago? i really believe we are. if you think the border can be better secured, we have an idea for you to consider. if if you think there is a shortage of illegal labor in the current system works too hard to access, we have an idea for you to consider. if you are a union member or just an average american word about losing your job with cheap labor coming into your country, we have an idea to prevent that. if you are in the shadows and you are worried about what's going to happen to you, we have a solution. y
including john mccain and lindsey graham, they have suggested that e he should be treated as an enemy combat t combatant. let me read from the statement just released. the suspect based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant sts. we are encouraged to have our team involved and working together intelligence about how these terrible acts were committed and the possible of future attacks. a decision to not read miranda rights to the suspect was sound and in our national security interests. but they go one step further, avery, and say he shouldn't be tried as a normal u.s. citizen but an enemy combatant. what do you say to senator mccain, senator graham, peter king of the house intelligence committee who all four of them have issued this statement? >> respectfully, wolf, this is an american citizen naturalized committing alleged crimes on american soil. there's no question but that this case belongs in an article three a federal district court. the federal courts in boston have an enormous experience in dealing with terrorism. i'm mystified at that kind of statement.
important to people in my state. i think lindsey graham named it well when he called the schumer- mccain. the leadership of those two gentlemen in this process has been outstanding. it was everything i wished i could see since i have been here. when this bill is passed, it it will be a reaffirmation of two incredibly american ideas. the idea we are committed to the rule of law and the idea that we are a nation of immigrants. i would argue that it is those two ideas working together that decade after decade has enabled every generation of americans to invent the future. it is our time in the 21st century to decide whether we are still up to that task, whether we can continue to invent the future not just here, but the entire world. s of tential ourselves to thesei part of moving us forward. i want to thank the people in colorado who told me on how broken immigration system is effect in their lives and their works. the cattle ranchers on the eastern point. the people working in the high- tech field. the people who are the dreamers when i was superintendent of the denver public schools. eac
spoke yesterday on capitol hill. fourrepublicans and democrats. lindsey graham of south carolina addressed concerns that he has heard from his peers about the pathway to citizenship. [video clip] >> learn the language, as a civics exams, pay a fine, work, pass a criminal background check, half of my family would be excluded. this is no easy task. [laughter] i'm glad we are not applying it to ourselves. knowope is that america i is ready for immigration reform. you look at all the polls. if the congress ready to do something that we should have done a long time ago? i really believe we are. if you think the border can be better secured, we have an idea for you to consider. if if you think there is a shortage of illegal labor in the current system works too hard to access, we have an idea for you to consider. if you are a union member or just an average american word about losing your job with cheap labor coming into your country, we have an idea to prevent that. if you are in the shadows and you are worried about what's going to happen to you, we have a solution. you are going to
to achieve with lindsey graham and kelly, that is the most important thing. our priority should be not to punish these perpetrators, not to prosecute them, not to rehabilitate them. our main purpose should be that we have somebody in custody that may know of other terrorist plots and terrorist cells that has information that could save lives. can they get information from them? tell them that he has the right to remain silent and we are going to remain ignorant of the information that he has, even if that means that other people will be killed and a terrorist act in the future. it is a mistaken decision to say that we will remain ignorant. aside from all of the prosecution and issues. we are remaining ignorant right choice. >> officials say the boston bombing suspects are apparently motivated by religion. no terrorist group ties. -- brother's mastermind masterminded the attack. they worked independently. does that change your opinion? >> i have great respect for the media. i spent many years as a journalist. we get things wrong. how do we know? can you tell me who trained them?
, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, peter king, they released a statement, the suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combat tant status. we do not want the suspect to remain silent. we have concerns that limiting this investigation to 48 hours and exclusively relying on the public safety exception to miranda could very well be a national security mistake. is this realistic he would be named as an enemy combat talent, denying him rights even though's u.s. citizen, he was naturalized on september 11th of last year and he was arrested in the united states? >> no, this is a deep philosophical division between the obama administration and some of the republican -- sorry about this and what that means is the obama administration has said the criminal justice system can make this work, the criminal can handle national security risks like this person, terrorists have been prosecuted, moussaoui. this administration is committed to using the american courts there are some critics, like senator mccain, like senator graham, who say that's too big a risk, that we have too m
. lindsey graham has said there are two possible ways that the fbi dropped the ball on this. first, it could have been a systemic failure in the sense that the procedures were following up on these warnings were floored or secondly there was some individual floor related to this. >> briefly, because you have said that, look, despite the fact that this may now have russia sort of saying, look, we tried to warn the u.s., look at that relationship between russia and chechnya, just because the u.s. and russia have to communicate about this issue, that it could help relations between these two countries. >> that's something we can see going forward. u.s.-russian relations have been terrible the last few years. a travel ban and asset freeze on senior russian officials and the russians retaliated with a sisir ban on u.s. officials linked with guantanamo bay. >> and he's u.s. adoptions. >> u.s. adoptions, exactly. there's indications that relations could be warming and is we have the winter olympics next year in sochi. >> we'll need a lot of international cooperation on security, as well. >> exactly
's some talk in washington, senator lindsey graham among others, saying that he should be treated as an enemy combatant, at least for a time, to get as much information as they can during the investigation. what's your feeling on that? >> well, i think, first of all, you need the right facts in order to be able to charge that. the federal government is still determining what was the motive of these two young men. are they connected to anybody else? until they do that work, until we finish this investigation, that question may even be premature, unless you have a basis for it. i do think that the federal government has had a good track record in civil cases here, understanding what forum people should be in in order to get the best information. but i think we have to be confident. i am, having worked with them this week, is that they're focused on getting information they need to bring the appropriate charges. they can always be updated. and i think that they will make the right decision based upon what they know about this investigation. >> we heard from the boston police commissi
on in this hearing right now between lindsey graham and janet napolitano. we will get into it more later. the gist of it is why didn't we know about tamerlan's trip to russia, given the fact that he had been -- he had been, you know, asked questions already by the fbi, and at one point janet napolitano in this hearing today suggested, well he pinged on the way out. we picked him up on the way out. mike levine sailed he was on a very large watch list not a terror watch list that doesn't have a whole lot of significance. the big thing here, bob is are we doing what we need to be doing in terms of keeping track of people who have been on the radar in this country, or are we throwing up our hands and saying we can't find anything on them so we are done with that. >> this is the third time the fbi has let people slip through their fingers. they interviewed the guy before he went to russia. then he went to russia in an area near chechnya and he was there for six months. at that point it would seem to me it would trigger something, somewhere along the line. martha: you would think. >> this guy has been a
's senator lindsey graham on camera. the so-called gang of 8 senators unveiled the plan yesterday. it includes 13-year path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. critics say it amounts to amnesty for people who came to this country illegally. >>> police and child welfare advocates say a little notice change to a california law makes it harder to track possible child abusers. california has a database that includes the names of suspected abusers. it's used to flag people when they apply to work with kids or take on foster children. starting in 2011, only state welfare agencies can add names to the database. in the past police have also been able to submit names. officers say that creates a gap in information, especially if a suspect moves often. >>> san fransisco city attorneys are investigating a nevada mental hospital accused of dumping discharged patients in the city. sacramento bee reports that the psychiatric hospital has bussed more than 1500 mentally ill patients out of nevada over the past five years. 500 of them were given one-way tickets to
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 57 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)